|2010-10-08 13:30:55||An encouragement to write blog posts about new peer-reviewed papers|
If I had many more hours in the day, I would love to write blog posts about the latest peer-reviewed papers. The primary goal of Skeptical Science is to educate the public about what's happening to our climate. An effective way of doing this is by translating peer-reviewed science into plain English so people can understand the latest science results. So whenever I can, I try to write blog posts that summarise a new (or sometimes old) peer-reviewed paper into just a few paragraphs and a graph or two. I'd like to encourage you all to think about doing this also for several reasons:
I'm sure everyone would approach this differently but for the record, I have a fairly simple methodology when I parse a peer-review paper that gets the job done pretty quickly and efficiently:
I'd wouldn't suggest that we should go through the full "five thumbs up" review procedure for blog posts, but all the same there's tremendous value in getting at least a quick look-see from a 2nd pair of eyes prior to putting stuff out in public. We can avoid all sorts of ringers that way, from simple spelling and grammatical blunders all the way to perhaps being a little quick on the trigger covering the occasional paper conveying tenuous or marginally important results.
Also, using the "Blog Posts" thread to immediately advertise when one is taking up a subject even before the first word is written will avoid dismaying duplication of effort. We've a number of people working here now and some of the splashier papers will eventually cause a collision.
I should add, obviously a lot of people are already using the "Blog Posts" thread, I suppose I'm thinking aloud a bit here. For some reason it's been a blind spot for me.
In such kind of posts, it is important to not draw conclusions , just report the news and what the authors say. Too risky otherwise.
For example, there's a new paper on sun activity where they claim that the sun's influence on climate is upside down. Interesting, but with a lot of ifs and caveats. We don't want to jump on any train.
I agree with Doug that we cannot follow the full "review procedure". I suggest to post it here, comments are welcome if fast enough but it's John who decide to publish it. Although the author takes the full responsibility, this is John's site, the last word is his.
|2010-10-08 19:57:02||Whether to post into blog forum|
|Don't consider it necessary to post into the forum either - that would be more if you'd like feedback or wish to smooth off any rough edges before going live. Once you've done a few posts, you're probably comfortable to post some or all such posts without needing to run them by here. Also, if you've done a few blog posts, you probably have a good grasp of the Author Admin system and have demonstrated that you're not about to engage in ad hominem attacks or rant about politics so let me know if you'd like to be upgraded to Full Author - which means you can go live with blog posts yourself.|
I have to disagree with you hear. I think by rights that even people who have a little experience should consider posting in the blog thread because improvements can always be made. In the case of rapidfire responses to misinformation that isn't necessary but in discussing many topics it can root out any misplaced emphasis through having it appear online. Just a thought.
|I tend to agree that it's very useful to post a draft in the blogs forum to at least get some quick feedback before publishing. You've built a very useful peer-review system here, and it's always worthwhile to use it. Delaying publication by a few hours won't change anything.|